I dunno, I think he was a great man, with a lot of promise and amazing abilities, who was led into schism and heresy. It's kind of sad, really...
He was the pioneer of most of the modern charismatic groups. To some degree he must be held accountable for that legacy, but I think he would be appalled at what his flock became. He had just nearly as much disdain for 'enthusiasts', as they were called in those days, as Richard Hooker. I don't think he was able to see the end of what he started. However, he mainstreamed Arminianism, which I defend as not the enemy. Are the Articles Arminian? Not really, but they strike a very careful balance between Reformed and Lutheran positions. If Arminianism had been known at the time the Articles were drafted, it likely would have received some voice.
In all honesty, I have difficulty with Arminianism; it seems so intuitive, yet at the same time I only ever feel as though I'm just avoiding thoughts on the "irresistible logic", as Luther put it, of predestination by entertaining it. Perhaps I do not understand it well enough. Do any of you have any good resources aside from Wesley that could help me understand Arminianism in relation to Anglicanism?
We affirm that both are true, right? Predestination and a free will which is preceded by prevenient grace. That is the traditional centuries-old, millenia-old unchangeable position, afaik.
I suppose I misunderstand the debate as a whole, then. I was under the impression that Anglicanism leaned towards Calvinistic positions on these things.
I don't see any basis for it, mainly for the reason that our theologians didn't like to adopt modern emerging views as such. Thus they rejected the Arminian label but also rejected the Puritans and the Calvinists, even if both positions had pieces of something true and valuable in it. The reason is that both positions were novel, and named after particular thinkers, rather than going back to antiquity and having the stamp of eternity on them. That's why our formularies and liturgies never name any living author or thinker as their sources. Everything had to be rooted in antiquity, or not at all. That being said, the Divines quite emphatically taught free will and prevenient grace, which later became attached to the label of Arminianism. Yet at the same time they taught the concept of predestination, which later became associated with Calvinism (ignorantly). The concepts we use today did not exist in those times, and they were happy to adopt and promote the traditional understanding of grace, election, and free will, that became lost and corrupt in the 20th century.
That both are valid, when properly understood. God is fully sovereign and decides everything, when that is correctly understood; and that man has free will, when correctly understood.
Not a resource that relates Arminianism to Anglicanism, but the theologian Roger E. Olsen is a staunch Arminian. He blogs at Patheos and has written a couple of books seeking to clarify the Arminian positions. He teaches at Baylor.